According to that test, array and join is almost 6 times as fast as
string concat in my browser (Firefox on Vista).
On Feb 6, 4:37 pm, J Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've heard a few people mention the building an array and then
> using .join(''). I found that good-old-fashioned string concatenation
> was faster - and the syntax a bit cleaner.
>
> There's a neat test on this page. The joining arrays seems is a bit
> slower for me. (Firefox on OS X)
>
> http://www.quirksmode.org/dom/innerhtml.html
>
> Is joining arrays (i.e. the "innerHTML 2 test") faster for you?
>
> -j
>
> On Feb 6, 1:37 pm, polyrhythmic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You will have an easier time creating a single append by ,join() -ing
> > an array of elements and adding them as a block. Forcing jQuery to
> > evaluate each one individually creates a lot of repetition.
> > The .domManip() code in the source is pretty legible, if you're
> > curious.
>
> > Charles
>
> > On Feb 5, 3:00 am, George GSGD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I think it's generally proven that inserting dom objects is much
> > > slower than innerHTML, for the kind of inserting you're trying, that
> > > might be worth investigating...
>
> > > On Feb 4, 1:57 pm, Ashish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > Hi ,
>
> > > > I am very new to jquery. I am using jquery 1.2.2 . I use jquery
> > > > tablesorter to insert around 400 rows to a table. The data is
> > > > collected using an Ajax call.
>
> > > > When new rows are inserted to the table the CPU utilization shoots up
> > > > to 80%. All browsers freeze until the table is populated :(
>
> > > > I tried to insert 400 divs to a single div and faced the same problem.
> > > > This rules out a problem with tablesorter.
>
> > > > Does jquery attach a lot of handlers to dom events that make appends
> > > > very slow ?
>
> > > > Any suggestions would be much appreciated.
>
> > > > Thanks and regards,
> > > > - Ashish
